Bolton Abbey Cavendish private bridge closed

slowster
Moderator
Posts: 4612
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

Re: Bolton Abbey Cavendish private bridge closed

Post by slowster »

thirdcrank wrote: 15 May 2021, 12:38pm Of course, a test case might well clarify that cyclists' rights of way were wider than is sometimes assumed.
Which in part is why a test case is very unlikely to happen as matters stand. If my understanding of the law is correct, any legal action would have to be initiated by the landowner against the cyclists or others 'trespassing' on their land. I don't think there is a legal avenue available to cyclists or others to take the landowner to court. That is why in the case of Bolton Abbey CUK is focussing on the conditional tax exemption, and even then it is not in a position to go to court itself over the issue - all it can do is ask HMRC to review the matter. Similarly I think private individuals may not be able to enforce access to footpaths and bridleways, and instead are reliant on councils and their rights of way officers to enforce access.

Given that there is some doubt about whether landowners are legally entitled to prohibit cyclists using footpaths, they will want to avoid going to court to settle the matter. Instead they will seek to maintain the status quo, and act as though they are entitled to prohibit cyclists. To call their bluff it will be necessary to raise the stakes in a way that compels one of them to take a group of cyclists to court. Frequent rides (club runs?) by a group of cyclists across the Duke of Devonshire's landrover tracks (outside the shooting season) might be the answer, giving him the choice of backing down and accepting what would become established access, or taking the group to court and running the risk not only of losing, but also of a pyrrhic victory even if he won, because the publicity of the case could lead to a change in the law granting access.

CUK is probably the only body that is in a position to organise and implement such a campaign. If it decided to do it, I would contribute towards any fund to cover the costs of fighting the case in and out of court.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Bolton Abbey Cavendish private bridge closed

Post by thirdcrank »

I'd always assumed that something like this might come to a head if somebody who "knew their rights" encountered a couple of loyal retainers who took a different view and robustly dealt with them. I'm no expert on rights of way but some of the decided cases people have linked on earlier threads have been about similar circumstances. eg This may be how it came to be accepted that a perambulator - or pram to us oiks - was ok as an accompaniment for a pedestrian.

============================================================================
I've checked through a couple of old threads and Bicycler among others posted some authoritative stuff.

I also found this from me:
... OTOH, there's the world of getting a fundamental change in the law of property. I knew that already, but when somebody actually made the point above, I was rehearsing Ça ira! and getting ready to march at the head of a band of cycling revolutionaries wielding chain whips and pedal spanners. For about two seconds. We've never had a real revolution in this country and the likelihood is long gone. ...
viewtopic.php?p=625928#p625928
ChrisButch
Posts: 1187
Joined: 24 Feb 2009, 12:10pm

Re: Bolton Abbey Cavendish private bridge closed

Post by ChrisButch »

slowster wrote: 15 May 2021, 2:00pm

CUK is probably the only body that is in a position to organise and implement such a campaign. If it decided to do it, I would contribute towards any fund to cover the costs of fighting the case in and out of court.
The precedents are not encouraging. Some years ago the CTC (as it then was) organised rides on Dartmoor in protest at the National Park's new byelaw, which had been introduced without publicity or consultation, banning cycling anywhere on the moor other than the bridleways on which there was a statutory right. (Particularly unfortunate on Dartmoor, where there is little congruence between the line of bridleways as shown on the definitive map, and tracks actually visible on the ground. )This was before access rights in general had become a political issue with the CROW Act. Unfortunately, the protest was badly organised and fell flat, and only succeeded in antagonising locals with gates left open etc (I remember the acute embarrassment of trying to apologise to one such.) Of course CUK is now much more media and politically savvy, but would still need to tread very carefully both in organisation and public presentation.
User avatar
531colin
Posts: 16034
Joined: 4 Dec 2009, 6:56pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: Bolton Abbey Cavendish private bridge closed

Post by 531colin »

I'm not an expert in this, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
Its my impression that that the landowner has the right to turn back people who are on the land without any right or permission, and that a few employees are entitled to similarly turn people back. Its in my mind that these are the gamekeeper and the water bailiff, who must carry a card identifying themselves as such. The trespasser must be directed to the nearest (appropriate) right of way, if memory serves.
Thus (theoretically, of course) if you join the Landrover track from the Thruscross end, it soon passes the gamekeepers house, and if he sees you he will turn you back. However, if you join the same track from the Cavendish end, the tenant farmer may say "He doesn't like folk going over on bikes" but thats about the sum of the discussion.
slowster
Moderator
Posts: 4612
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

Re: Bolton Abbey Cavendish private bridge closed

Post by slowster »

My understanding is that a landowner has the right to use reasonable force to remove a trespasser that refuses to leave their land. That right would extend to the landowner's employees (not just specific categories of employee). I think thirdcrank has raised the possibility above that such use of force potentially could result in a court making a decision about whether a cyclist on a footpath was committing trespass, i.e. if physical force is used on the cyclist to remove them, it would be a criminal offence (common assault) if it was determined that the cyclist was not in law committing trespass by riding on a footpath. However, I think that approach is unlikely to succeed in practice: the police and CPS would not want to get drawn into what would be a prosecution of a minor offence with an ulterior motive of using the case to advance public rights of access over the rights of landowners.

If there were to be a proper campaign, then a situation that is likely to result in the use of force needs to be avoided. Such force might be deemed unlawful by the court and might work to the advantage of the campaigners if it shows the landowner in a bad light, but it is a risky strategy which might easily backfire and be very counterproductive.

A well planned mass trespass by a large(ish) group of (disciplined and well mannered) cyclists is likely to be more successful. If there are enough cyclists, the sheer weight of numbers will make it impractical for the estate's employees/security guards to use force: everyone just rides or walks around them.
atoz
Posts: 577
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 4:50pm

Re: Bolton Abbey Cavendish private bridge closed

Post by atoz »

slowster wrote: 15 May 2021, 11:15am
thirdcrank wrote: 15 May 2021, 9:43am Although I've answered this after a fashion higher up, 531colin's post goes some way to give more explanation. Around here, if you wanted a test case involving rights of way over privately-owned large areas of land this is it. And I fancy you'd be up against sufficient legal big guns to end up with a definitive case - Supreme Court if the lower courts came out in favour of cycling on footpaths being ok
It might be the right place not just for a test case of the current law, but as a starting point for getting the law changed. It might also be just the right time. The impact on many people of the pandemic and lockdowns over the last year may result in the public being more receptive to a campaign to increase countryside access.

A cycling equivalent of the Kinder Scout trespass might be extremely effective now, especially if it was done in a way that was likely to attract media attention and win the support of a lot of public. A problem for a lot of modern protests groups is that very often their appearance and actions are somewhat offputting to many ordinary people, even though they might agree with the aims of the protest. As a result a lot of potential public support is lost by those groups (e.g. Extinction Rebellion, the Colston statue protestors etc.).

Imagine a mass trespass of the Duke of Devonshire's landrover tracks, not by people on bikes who look like those in the CUK article:

Image

but instead by people who look more like this:

Image

A mass trespass by bunch of elderly people on bikes (the older the better), not wearing full lycra racing cycling kit, could get a lot of attention from the media and win public support for better access to the countryside for cyclists and others.
You're out of date, it's actually the elderly who are likely to do the full lycra, usually veteran racing cyclists, easily spotted as they're fitter and faster than anyone else lol
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Bolton Abbey Cavendish private bridge closed

Post by Jdsk »

slowster
Moderator
Posts: 4612
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

Re: Bolton Abbey Cavendish private bridge closed

Post by slowster »

There is clearly uncertainty about exactly what access rights cyclists and others do have to significant parts of the countryside in England and Wales. Because the nature of the law is that "everything which is not forbidden is allowed", the only way to clarify exactly what the access rights are is to push the boundaries and provoke a test court case brought by one or more landowners.

I suspect many/most senior people in CUK would not want to instigate that: it is a somewhat risky strategy which could result in criticism and negative publicity and damage the organisation. However, if a District Association or affiliated club were to take the initiative and force the issue itself by arranging repeated rides across the Devonshire estate's landrover tracks, CUK might then be much more comfortable about getting involved, i.e. rather than being the instigator/driving force, it would be seen as coming to the assistance of its members.
atoz
Posts: 577
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 4:50pm

Re: Bolton Abbey Cavendish private bridge closed

Post by atoz »

slowster wrote: 22 May 2021, 3:54pm There is clearly uncertainty about exactly what access rights cyclists and others do have to significant parts of the countryside in England and Wales. Because the nature of the law is that "everything which is not forbidden is allowed", the only way to clarify exactly what the access rights are is to push the boundaries and provoke a test court case brought by one or more landowners.

I suspect many/most senior people in CUK would not want to instigate that: it is a somewhat risky strategy which could result in criticism and negative publicity and damage the organisation. However, if a District Association or affiliated club were to take the initiative and force the issue itself by arranging repeated rides across the Devonshire estate's landrover tracks, CUK might then be much more comfortable about getting involved, i.e. rather than being the instigator/driving force, it would be seen as coming to the assistance of its members.
I think a more useful approach, which I have seen mooted elsewhere, is a boycott of businesses that are on estate land. There are quite a few. This area is visited by cyclists a lot esp racing cyclists. Money talks. Not fair of course but I'm afraid life isn't fair. These businesses will be paying rent to the estate. There are also other activities that take place in this area eg fell running. A concerted approach across interested groups might help. Sounds hard but sometimes you have to balance out the good and the bad.

The Green Party might be interested, although CUK can't get involved with politics because of their charitable status, so couldn't be official through them. Sadly the Labour Party now probably won't be interested IMHO, although that's more of a problem with the leader than the party members. There are some left wing cycling groups that might get some traction with it, but they are very much a minority of a minority.

Its the sort of issue that Corbyn would have liked to publicise, of course. Oh dear, too late..

Social media is good for this, maybe a post on Novara Media or Double down News- oh **** I forgot, that wouldn't fly with many cyclists if they are on the political right... Oh well it was an idea..
atoz
Posts: 577
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 4:50pm

Re: Bolton Abbey Cavendish private bridge closed

Post by atoz »

slowster wrote: 22 May 2021, 3:54pm There is clearly uncertainty about exactly what access rights cyclists and others do have to significant parts of the countryside in England and Wales. Because the nature of the law is that "everything which is not forbidden is allowed", the only way to clarify exactly what the access rights are is to push the boundaries and provoke a test court case brought by one or more landowners.

I suspect many/most senior people in CUK would not want to instigate that: it is a somewhat risky strategy which could result in criticism and negative publicity and damage the organisation. However, if a District Association or affiliated club were to take the initiative and force the issue itself by arranging repeated rides across the Devonshire estate's landrover tracks, CUK might then be much more comfortable about getting involved, i.e. rather than being the instigator/driving force, it would be seen as coming to the assistance of its members.
I think a more useful approach, which I have seen mooted elsewhere, is a boycott of businesses that are on estate land. There are quite a few. This area is visited by cyclists a lot esp racing cyclists. Money talks. Not fair of course but I'm afraid life isn't fair. These businesses will be paying rent to the estate. There are also other activities that take place in this area eg fell running. A concerted approach across interested groups might help. Sounds hard but sometimes you have to balance out the good and the bad.

The Green Party might be interested, although CUK can't get involved with politics because of their charitable status, so couldn't be official through them. Sadly the Labour Party now probably won't be interested IMHO, although that's more of a problem with the leader than the party members. There are some left wing cycling groups that might get some traction with it, but they are very much a minority of a minority.

Its the sort of issue that Corbyn would have liked to publicise, of course. Oh dear, too late..

Social media is good for this, maybe a post on Novara Media or Double down News- oh **** I forgot, that wouldn't fly with many cyclists if they are on the political right... Oh well it was an idea..
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Bolton Abbey Cavendish private bridge closed

Post by thirdcrank »

... a boycott of businesses that are on estate land ....
Is there some sort of list?

The most obvious to me would have been Buffers at Storiths but they have recently closed anyway. I see the contact details now refer to the Bolton Abbey Estate.

http://www.bufferscoffeeshop.co.uk/

The most obvious sign to me that His Grace is not interested in cyclists' custom is that his minions are deployed to turn them away.
atoz
Posts: 577
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 4:50pm

Re: Bolton Abbey Cavendish private bridge closed

Post by atoz »

thirdcrank wrote: 30 May 2021, 12:09pm
... a boycott of businesses that are on estate land ....
Is there some sort of list?

The most obvious to me would have been Buffers at Storiths but they have recently closed anyway. I see the contact details now refer to the Bolton Abbey Estate.

http://www.bufferscoffeeshop.co.uk/

The most obvious sign to me that His Grace is not interested in cyclists' custom is that his minions are deployed to turn them away.
There will be a way of finding out, although not easily. And this is not just a cycling issue, it's about access to the countryside, and many groups are impacted by the attitudes of our landed aristocracy. Cyclists are just an easy target, but it could have affected others, and has, eg people with a disability. As for His Grace no doubt he is not interested in cyclists, but to be sure he will be interested in the effects of bad publicity on local tourism. The Cavendish bridge and security heavies story made every national newspaper, even the Daily Mail. Not a news story you want when coming out of a pandemic. It felt like "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" cyclists obviously less equal, like the disabled person who couldn't be accompanied by a helper on a part of the estate. The only reason working class people are allowed on the estate is that most being motorists, they are an easy way of making money eg parking, and the ripoff pavilion. Yes I'm sure some locals share the attitude of the estate, but if enough people stay away they will change their minds.

In case you are wondering about the value of "active leisure" as a tourism money maker, think about the amount that came in during the Grand Depart, and subsequent events eg Tour de Yorkshire. The sportives linked to the latter brought large numbers of riders to the Dales, and with them purchasing power. Not all cyclists are skint, some have plenty of disposable income. Some can even afford Rapha kit lol..
slowster
Moderator
Posts: 4612
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

Re: Bolton Abbey Cavendish private bridge closed

Post by slowster »

Duncan Dollimore discussing Bolton Abbey specifically and public access to the countryside in England and Wales generally in a podcast on singletrackworld.com:

https://singletrackworld.com/2021/06/th ... ycling-uk/
ratherbeintobago
Posts: 971
Joined: 5 Dec 2010, 6:31pm

Re: Bolton Abbey Cavendish private bridge closed

Post by ratherbeintobago »

I've just listened to that - it's really good.

I wonder where things are up to now.
Tiggertoo
Posts: 475
Joined: 2 Jun 2021, 4:52pm

Re: Bolton Abbey Cavendish private bridge closed

Post by Tiggertoo »

. A problem for a lot of modern protests groups is that very often their appearance and actions are somewhat offputting to many ordinary people, even though they might agree with the aims of the protest
From observation, I am of the opinion that most 'protest' groups are just in it to create as much disturbance as possible with the sole aim of creating as much disturbance as possible with the only intent being to create as much disturbance as possible. None, as far as I can judge, have any use to society whatever.
Post Reply